5 ms·

Derivative training data is already part of the training regime. Earliest example produced rotated images for more robust image recognition. IP laws are legal

Derivative training data is already part of the training regime. Earliest example produced rotated images for more robust image recognition. IP laws are legal constructs and subject to changes like everything else depending on our needs. When and if enough of us see benefits from AI hugely outweighing benefits from maintaining IP framework, I'm pretty sure laws will be passed to make needed adjustments.

chitowneats 4y ago
Literal shape-rotating?? I thought it was only the wordcels who were in trouble.
srcreigh 4y ago
Any automated process for generating training data is part of the model, not part of the training data. Authentic human generated information has irreducible newness.
- adrianN 4y ago
  >Authentic human generated information has irreducible newness I believe that point is open to debate.
  - xingyzt 4y ago
    AI couldn't have started any of the artistic and literary movements, which don't just blend between traditional styles but reject some aspect to forge something new. You can't get AI to generate cubism from training on Victorian art.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      So do you believe that human brains are somehow magic and don't follow the laws of physics and can't be simulated by Turing machines?
      - meheleventyone 4y ago
        They’re talking about AI now not some notional future where we can model a real nervous system.
      - srcreigh 4y ago
        I do. It’s not a very controversial belief except if you only train using Internet comments.
        adrianN 4y ago
        It's quite controversial since any magic element in the universe undermines fundamental assumptions.
        srcreigh 4y ago
        Physics has plenty of holes. It’s a changing model of measurable quantities in our world. It doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to fit other systems either into the gaps in physics, or independent unmeasurable areas
        adrianN 4y ago
        Magic violates fundamental principles of our understanding of the world like causality or various conservation laws. You can't just squeeze that into the gaps.
      - atlantic 4y ago
        You've set up a false dichotomy. "Human brain is magic." <> "Human brain is not simulatable by Turing machines." There are other possibilities. I'm sure you can think of a few.
        adrianN 4y ago
        I can't think of any. Can you help me?
    - Aerroon 4y ago
      Why not? Sure, a style like cubism is unlikely to appear from current AI art generation, but ultimately there's a human still in the loop. The human picks the direction the generation goes in and you can definitely see "styles" or even "characters" appear in certain types of prompts. If you hang around people that do this a lot you'll see that some of them end up generating hundreds, if not thousands, of images of what seems to be the same character in varying situations. That indicates to me that you could potentially find a type of prompt that would lead to an art movement. Hell, AI art itself might constitute an art movement.
  - srcreigh 4y ago
    Yep. Another commenter said that likes and clicks is enough for AI to generate new relavant information, not new content. Think language change every 1000 years. Would AI adapt to that? What new training data would it require? Surely obviously it would require some new inputs. It surely requires internet connected speakers of the developing language. I think the “surely it would require new inputs” is enough to favour the irreducible newness point. “Irreducible newness” may be just overhyped “changing relevancy” though, that’s what I’m stuck on.
salawat 4y ago
See, until then though, you don't get to ignore the law as it is. You see, you're part of the system, not outside it. If it were not for my deep, deep hatred of the farce we call IP law, I must admit, I'd seriously consider walking over to the other side; because I look at these AI folks scouring training data without so much as asking the original creator for consent, or even sparing a couple cycles to think about whether they should, and it really rankles me. In fact, the entire damn computing industry is filled with people with some seriously flawed ideas around the concept and mechanics of the act of obtaining consent.
- malwrar 4y ago
  > because I look at these AI folks scouring training data without so much as asking the original creator for consent Consent for… what exactly? Why is anyone entitled to some notion of ownership & power over who may and may not make use of information? I understand to some degree practical arguments around recouping cost of development and distribution of information, but I don’t think anyone should really concern themselves ethically with what some random person wants them to do with the information. This isn’t like ensuring a sexual partner is an enthusiastic participant, this feels to me more like I’m not going to ask mommy for permission every time I want to play outside (let alone care if I’m told “no”). What practical defense is that anyways? Maybe my understanding of your framing is off?
  - mold_aid 4y ago
    >Why is anyone entitled to some notion of ownership & power over who may and may not make use of information? You mean like copyright holders? Patent holders? Somebody with a trade secret? >but I don’t think anyone should really concern themselves ethically with what some random person wants them to do with the information. This isn’t like ensuring a sexual partner is an enthusiastic participant, this feels to me more like I’m not going to ask mommy for permission every time I want to play outside (let alone care if I’m told “no”). What practical defense is that anyways? But yes, anyone should. You're just saying "I don't think people should disagree with me" not "information distribution and consent aren't ethical concerns" - of course they are! Why wouldn't you propose as counterexample a model like medicine's "informed consent" instead of sexual consent or "asking mommy"?
6510 4y ago
If learning is not allowed the robot overlords can move to countries not on the IP bandwagon like Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine or Venezuela. Those are on the priority watch list, there is also a normal watch list. Those are probably lax enough to allow a lot. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Special_301_Report.pdf https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Special_301_Report...

chitowneats 4y ago

Literal shape-rotating?? I thought it was only the wordcels who were in trouble.

srcreigh 4y ago

Any automated process for generating training data is part of the model, not part of the training data. Authentic human generated information has irreducible newness.

adrianN 4y ago
>Authentic human generated information has irreducible newness I believe that point is open to debate.
- xingyzt 4y ago
  AI couldn't have started any of the artistic and literary movements, which don't just blend between traditional styles but reject some aspect to forge something new. You can't get AI to generate cubism from training on Victorian art.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    So do you believe that human brains are somehow magic and don't follow the laws of physics and can't be simulated by Turing machines?
    - meheleventyone 4y ago
      They’re talking about AI now not some notional future where we can model a real nervous system.
    - srcreigh 4y ago
      I do. It’s not a very controversial belief except if you only train using Internet comments.
      - adrianN 4y ago
        It's quite controversial since any magic element in the universe undermines fundamental assumptions.
        srcreigh 4y ago
        Physics has plenty of holes. It’s a changing model of measurable quantities in our world. It doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to fit other systems either into the gaps in physics, or independent unmeasurable areas
        adrianN 4y ago
        Magic violates fundamental principles of our understanding of the world like causality or various conservation laws. You can't just squeeze that into the gaps.
    - atlantic 4y ago
      You've set up a false dichotomy. "Human brain is magic." <> "Human brain is not simulatable by Turing machines." There are other possibilities. I'm sure you can think of a few.
      - adrianN 4y ago
        I can't think of any. Can you help me?
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    Why not? Sure, a style like cubism is unlikely to appear from current AI art generation, but ultimately there's a human still in the loop. The human picks the direction the generation goes in and you can definitely see "styles" or even "characters" appear in certain types of prompts. If you hang around people that do this a lot you'll see that some of them end up generating hundreds, if not thousands, of images of what seems to be the same character in varying situations. That indicates to me that you could potentially find a type of prompt that would lead to an art movement. Hell, AI art itself might constitute an art movement.
- srcreigh 4y ago
  Yep. Another commenter said that likes and clicks is enough for AI to generate new relavant information, not new content. Think language change every 1000 years. Would AI adapt to that? What new training data would it require? Surely obviously it would require some new inputs. It surely requires internet connected speakers of the developing language. I think the “surely it would require new inputs” is enough to favour the irreducible newness point. “Irreducible newness” may be just overhyped “changing relevancy” though, that’s what I’m stuck on.

salawat 4y ago

See, until then though, you don't get to ignore the law as it is. You see, you're part of the system, not outside it. If it were not for my deep, deep hatred of the farce we call IP law, I must admit, I'd seriously consider walking over to the other side; because I look at these AI folks scouring training data without so much as asking the original creator for consent, or even sparing a couple cycles to think about whether they should, and it really rankles me. In fact, the entire damn computing industry is filled with people with some seriously flawed ideas around the concept and mechanics of the act of obtaining consent.

malwrar 4y ago
> because I look at these AI folks scouring training data without so much as asking the original creator for consent Consent for… what exactly? Why is anyone entitled to some notion of ownership & power over who may and may not make use of information? I understand to some degree practical arguments around recouping cost of development and distribution of information, but I don’t think anyone should really concern themselves ethically with what some random person wants them to do with the information. This isn’t like ensuring a sexual partner is an enthusiastic participant, this feels to me more like I’m not going to ask mommy for permission every time I want to play outside (let alone care if I’m told “no”). What practical defense is that anyways? Maybe my understanding of your framing is off?
- mold_aid 4y ago
  >Why is anyone entitled to some notion of ownership & power over who may and may not make use of information? You mean like copyright holders? Patent holders? Somebody with a trade secret? >but I don’t think anyone should really concern themselves ethically with what some random person wants them to do with the information. This isn’t like ensuring a sexual partner is an enthusiastic participant, this feels to me more like I’m not going to ask mommy for permission every time I want to play outside (let alone care if I’m told “no”). What practical defense is that anyways? But yes, anyone should. You're just saying "I don't think people should disagree with me" not "information distribution and consent aren't ethical concerns" - of course they are! Why wouldn't you propose as counterexample a model like medicine's "informed consent" instead of sexual consent or "asking mommy"?

6510 4y ago

If learning is not allowed the robot overlords can move to countries not on the IP bandwagon like Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine or Venezuela. Those are on the priority watch list, there is also a normal watch list. Those are probably lax enough to allow a lot. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Special_301_Report.pdf https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Special_301_Report...